Dave, I’ve never seen evidence that cyclists in these parts are “organized” in any way. However, they might be more internet-savvy as a group than motorists, and maybe more of them felt like they had a vested interest in the bike-lane experiment.

I’ve ridden every foot of the experimental lanes at least a couple times, and I voted “no” on all three. Here’s why:
1) If you think they are under-utilized in May, wait ’til January! I’m pragmatic enough to realize that far more people drive cars year ’round… and will during our lifetimes. (Maybe someday when gas is $15/gallon, and global warming results in lows in the 50s in January, it’ll be different! /sarcasm)
2) I’d much rather ride through either Julia Davis or Ann Morrison Park, than ride up Capitol Boulevard. And when I’m eastbound or westbound, there are already bike lanes on Bannock, a block to the north, and Grove, a block to the south. We’ll never have bike lanes on every road… let’s deal with that reality.
3) I’m NOT sold on the scheme of putting the bike lane between the sidewalk and car parking. I’ve had several “close encounters” with motorists turning across the bike lane directly into my path. They couldn’t see me because parked cars are blocking the view. (I exchanged emails with an ACHD engineer who pointed out I’m less likely to get hit by a car pulling out of a parking spot. True story! But is it somehow better to be hit by a moving car turning across my path?)

Wherever bike facilities are provided, I’ll be happy to use ’em! But I’m far from convinced that the experimental configuration is the best use of public pavement.

EDITOR NOTE–Bikeboy, I stand by the “better organized” theory. How many white cars do you see chained to signposts at the scene of fatal accidents? The bikers CARE and they turn out for memorial rides, etc.

I agree with bikeboy. Some of the forced paths and turns are more dangerous than simply riding with traffic with no bike concessions. Propose that instead of $$$$ for “building and they will come” with bicycle lanes that don’t make much sense in many areas, $$$$ could be better spent on workshops etc to educate commuters and potential/new cyclists on safe riding strategies. What has been tried here creates a false sense of safety, while actually creating more dangerous situations especiallly at intersections and with bike lanes outside parked car door zones. Adding to the danger – frustrated drivers.

Cyclists organized? Maybe not. More apt to give input? Obviously.

But what ACHD doesn’t tell us is if they’re filtering submissions from identical IP addresses.

I’m guessing that most cyclists are aged 20 to 35 and more likely to be tech savvy. That is they know they can clear their cookies or use multiple browsers or proxy servers to enter the survey more than once. I’m guessing many of them have multiple email addresses and multiple internet capable devices, like a work computer, home computer, and cellular smart phone all with different IP addresses. There would be no way to tell if there’s vote brigading.

What about less tech savvy users (older husband and wife) in a single household with a single IP address. It wouldn’t be fair to exclude those legitimate results.

Danger factor:

Drivers making lefts off of Main is definitely a more dangerous situation than before. A row of parked SUVs or even cars blocks the view of drivers from seeing cyclists in the bike lane. This makes a left hook very likely. It makes pedestrians less safe. I find myself looking right for light runners, then over my shoulder to the left for cyclists and the last thing I look for is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. But I’m in a hurry to cross the crosswalk because I don’t want a cyclist broadsiding me while I’m turning left.

In fact this is absurd. It is patently illegal to make a left or right from other than the left most or right most travel lane unless stripped as a multiple turn lane. To have turning traffic cross over thru traffic defies logic and it defies common sense.

Usage:

I drive Main everyday. I count the cars and cyclists. Moving cars far outnumber moving cyclists. 20 to 1 or more. It’s probably 100 to 1.

Summary:

Given the constraints of history and topography motorists will never have a new road punched through downtown. The bike lanes are a shoehorning hatchet job. Cyclists and motorists and going to have to settle for something that’s less than perfect.

Grove and Bannock are good enough. Remove the wooden planks and pave the 8th Street trestle.

I second Bikeboys comments.
I live in East Boise and Work in ‘west Downtown’.

When I drive to work I drive Main and Idaho. When I bike to work/or anywhere westward I do not use Main or Idaho. I still do not.

Bikeboy, I hope you can make it to the ACHD meeting to testify.

The bike lanes downtown are a done deal. Doesn’t matter what the majority of people think. Feel sorry for what is going to happen to the merchants.

I frequently bike downtown, and while I appreciate the bike lanes, I voted for their removal, my biggest issue is how ugly it makes the streetscape. It looks like a permanent construction zone.

I think some kinda of cycling infrastructure is needed. I think these buffered lanes could work with some tweaks, mostly at the left turns on Main and right turns on Idaho & Capitol.

I find it interesting that we are getting almost daily updates on the survey and comments. I have never seen survey results and comments released before a final decision is made in a government agency. It is almost like they are are trying to skew the results one way or another.

EDITOR NOTE–Clancy, I agree. Who would have thought bikes would come down to being a political issue…and I would venture, generational. i.e. “Old conservatives don’t like bike lanes, young progressives want to get rid of cars.”